lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:47:07 +0900
From:   Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
        Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        qiuxishi@...wei.com, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: drop migrate type checks from has_unmovable_pages

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:12:58AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 06:44 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure what is the confusing semantic you mentioned. I think
> >>> that set_migratetype_isolate() has confusing semantic and should be
> >>> fixed since making the pageblock isolated doesn't need to check if
> >>> there is unmovable page or not. Do you think that
> >>> set_migratetype_isolate() need to check it? If so, why?
> >>
> >> My intuitive understanding of set_migratetype_isolate is that it either
> >> suceeds and that means that the given pfn range can be isolated for the
> >> given type of allocation (be it movable or cma). No new pages will be
> >> allocated from this range to allow converging into a free range in a
> >> finit amount of time. At least this is how the hotplug code would like
> >> to use it and I suppose that the alloc_contig_range would like to
> >> guarantee the same to not rely on a fixed amount of migration attempts.
> > 
> > Yes, alloc_contig_range() also want to guarantee the similar thing.
> > Major difference between them is 'given pfn range'. memory hotplug
> > works by pageblock unit but alloc_contig_range() doesn't.
> > alloc_contig_range() works by the page unit. However, there is no easy
> > way to isolate individual page so it uses pageblock isolation
> > regardless of 'given pfn range'. In this case, checking movability of
> > all pages on the pageblock would cause the problem as I mentioned
> > before.
> 
> I couldn't look too closely yet, but do I understand correctly that the
> *potential* problem (because as you say there are no such
> alloc_contig_range callers) you are describing is not newly introduced
> by Michal's series? Then his patch fixing the introduced regression

This potential problem exists there before Michal's series if the
migratetype of the target pageblock isn't MIGRATE_MOVABLE or MIGRATE_CMA.
However, his series enlarges this potential problem surface. It
would be the problem now even if the migratetype of the target
pageblock is MIGRATE_MOVABLE.

> should be enough for now, and further improvements could be posted on
> top, and not vice versa? Please don't take it wrong, I agree the current
> state is a bit of a mess and improvements are welcome. Also it seems to

I'm not very sensitive that which patch is applied first. I can do
rebase. But, IMHO, correct applying order is my patch first and then
Michal's series.

Anyway, Michal, feel free to do what you think correct.

> me that Michal is right, and there's nothing preventing
> alloc_contig_range() to allocate from CMA pageblocks for non-CMA
> purposes (likely not movable), and that should be also fixed?

I noticed the problem you mentioned now and, yes, it should be fixed.
My patch will naturally fixes this issue, too.

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists